Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Massage for promoting mental and physical health in typically developing infants under the age of six months

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005038.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 30 April 2013see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Cathy Bennett

    Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK

  • Angela Underdown

    Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK

  • Jane Barlow

    Correspondence to: Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

This updated review was written by Jane Barlow, Cathy Bennett, Angela Underdown.
Jane Barlow will have responsibility for updating the systematic review as new material becomes available.
Cathy Bennett contributed to the updated review by reviewing search results, extracting and entering data (with other authors) and drafting the text.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University of Warwick, UK.

External sources

  • HTA, Not specified.

Declarations of interest

Angela Underdown ‐ has no conflicts on interest in relation to this review.
Jane Barlow ‐ NIHR Health Technology Assessment awarded a grant to Warwick Medical School which paid for my time in working on the update of this review.
Cathy Bennett ‐ is the proprietor of Systematic Research Ltd and received a consultancy fee for her work on this review.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yongjian Hu for his help with co‐reviewing the Chinese data. Vincent Cheung identified, translated and data extracted the majority of the Chinese papers. We also thank the Cochrane CDPLPG group for their support throughout the review writing process and for the searches.

We thank the following trial investigators who responded to our requests for further information about the trial conditions: Fereshteh Narenji, Madeleine O'Higgins, Krista Oswalt, Rosemary White‐Traut, Xui‐hong Li, Ruth Elliott and colleagues, Tiffany Field, Sari Ferber, Vonda Jump, Deborah Koniak‐Griffin, Vivette Glover and Katsuno Onozawa, Tae Im Kim, Deborah Koniak‐Griffin.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2013 Apr 30

Massage for promoting mental and physical health in typically developing infants under the age of six months

Review

Cathy Bennett, Angela Underdown, Jane Barlow

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005038.pub3

2006 Oct 18

Massage intervention for promoting mental and physical health in infants aged under six months

Review

Angela Underdown, Jane Barlow, Vincent Chung, Sarah Stewart‐Brown

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005038.pub2

2004 Oct 18

Massage intervention for promoting mental and physical health in infants aged under six months

Protocol

Angela Underdown, Jane Barlow, Sarah Stewart‐Brown

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005038

Differences between protocol and review

We have rewritten sections of the Background.

Consistent with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011), since the previous version of the review was published, additional elements have been added to the 'Risk of bias' tables that were not present in the previous published review.

We added a comment in the Methods section, 'Unit of analysis issues' concerning cluster randomisation. None of the included studies in this review employed cluster randomisation.

A sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of the findings by examining the impact of one large study (Kim 2003). This was undertaken because we were concerned that this study dominated the meta‐analysis and that the results of this study may have been due to the fact that the sample comprised infants receiving orphanage care (that is, with unusually low levels of tactile stimulation), whereas the remaining studies comprised infants receiving usual levels of tactile stimulation from parents.

In this updated review, we made a further post hoc decision to record factors such as geographical location of the population and risk of bias for use in subsequent sensitivity analyses in which we repeated some of the meta‐analysis, substituting alternative decisions to ensure that the results of the review are robust. We also investigated the effect of duration on intervention on outcomes and performed additional analyses accordingly.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn;

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 1 Weight.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 1 Weight.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 2 Weight: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 2 Weight: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 3 Length.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 3 Length.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 4 Length: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 4 Length: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 5 Head circumference.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 5 Head circumference.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 6 Head circumference: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 6 Head circumference: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 7 Mid arm circumference.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 7 Mid arm circumference.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 8 Mid leg/thigh circumference.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 8 Mid leg/thigh circumference.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 9 Abdominal circumference.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 9 Abdominal circumference.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 10 Chest circumference.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 10 Chest circumference.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 11 Hormones: cortisol.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 11 Hormones: cortisol.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 12 Hormones: norepinephrine.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 12 Hormones: norepinephrine.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 13 Hormones: epinephrine.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 13 Hormones: epinephrine.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 14 Hormones: serotonin.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 14 Hormones: serotonin.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 15 Hormones: 6‐sulphatoxymelatonin secretion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 15 Hormones: 6‐sulphatoxymelatonin secretion.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 16 Biochemical markers: Bilirubin (7 days PN).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 16 Biochemical markers: Bilirubin (7 days PN).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 17 Crying or fussing time.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 17 Crying or fussing time.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 18 Crying frequency (times).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 18 Crying frequency (times).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 19 Sleep/wake behaviours (Thoman).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 19 Sleep/wake behaviours (Thoman).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 20 Behavioural state immediately post‐intervention (Thoman).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 20 Behavioural state immediately post‐intervention (Thoman).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 21 Sleep duration over 24hr period.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 21 Sleep duration over 24hr period.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 22 Mean increase in 24h sleep.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 22 Mean increase in 24h sleep.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 23 Mean increase in duration of night sleep.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 23 Mean increase in duration of night sleep.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 24 Mean increase in duration of day sleep.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 24 Mean increase in duration of day sleep.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 25 Mean increase in duration of first morning sleep after massage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 25 Mean increase in duration of first morning sleep after massage.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 26 Sleep (total hours per night).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 26 Sleep (total hours per night).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 27 Number of naps (total number of naps).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 27 Number of naps (total number of naps).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 28 Number of naps in day.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 28 Number of naps in day.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 29 Number of naps at night.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 29 Number of naps at night.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 30 Night Wake Frequency (times).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 30 Night Wake Frequency (times).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 31 Night wake duration.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.31

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 31 Night wake duration.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 32 Blood flow (post intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.32

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 32 Blood flow (post intervention).

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 33 Formula intake.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.33

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 33 Formula intake.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 34 Illness.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.34

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 34 Illness.

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 35 Illness and clinic visits.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.35

Comparison 1 Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development, Outcome 35 Illness and clinic visits.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 1 Infant temperament meta‐analyses.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 1 Infant temperament meta‐analyses.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 2 Infant temperament (CCTI) post intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 2 Infant temperament (CCTI) post intervention.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 3 Infant temperament (Infant behaviour questionnaire (IBQ) post intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 3 Infant temperament (Infant behaviour questionnaire (IBQ) post intervention).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 4 Infant temperament questionnaire (revised RITQ (Carey)) post‐intervention 4 months.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 4 Infant temperament questionnaire (revised RITQ (Carey)) post‐intervention 4 months.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 5 Infant temperament questionnaire (revised RITQ (Carey)) follow‐up 8 months.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 5 Infant temperament questionnaire (revised RITQ (Carey)) follow‐up 8 months.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 6 Infant Care Questionnaire post‐intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 6 Infant Care Questionnaire post‐intervention.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 7 Infant Care Questionnaire follow‐up 1 year.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 7 Infant Care Questionnaire follow‐up 1 year.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 8 Infant attachment (Q set).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 8 Infant attachment (Q set).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 9 Child behaviour (HOME).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 9 Child behaviour (HOME).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 10 Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) ‐ Intensity domain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 10 Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) ‐ Intensity domain.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 11 Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) ‐ Problem domain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 11 Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) ‐ Problem domain.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 12 Mother and child interaction meta‐analysis ‐ Total NCATS and Murray Global.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 12 Mother and child interaction meta‐analysis ‐ Total NCATS and Murray Global.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 13 Nursing Child Feeding Assessment Scale (NCAFS) ‐ Total.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 13 Nursing Child Feeding Assessment Scale (NCAFS) ‐ Total.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 14 Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) ‐ Mother.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 14 Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) ‐ Mother.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 15 Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) ‐ Child.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 15 Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) ‐ Child.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 16 Maternal sensitivity ‐ warm to cold (Murray).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 16 Maternal sensitivity ‐ warm to cold (Murray).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 17 Maternal sensitivity ‐ non‐intrusive to intrusive (Murray).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 17 Maternal sensitivity ‐ non‐intrusive to intrusive (Murray).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 18 Maternal sensitivity ‐ remoteness (Murray).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 18 Maternal sensitivity ‐ remoteness (Murray).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 19 Infant interactions ‐ infant performance ‐ attentive to non attentive (Murray).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.19

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 19 Infant interactions ‐ infant performance ‐ attentive to non attentive (Murray).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 20 Infant interactions ‐ lively to inert (Murray).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.20

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 20 Infant interactions ‐ lively to inert (Murray).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 21 Infant interactions ‐ happy to distressed (Murray).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.21

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 21 Infant interactions ‐ happy to distressed (Murray).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 22 Parenting stress (PSI Abidin) child characteristics subscale.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.22

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 22 Parenting stress (PSI Abidin) child characteristics subscale.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 23 Psychomotor Development Indices (PDI) meta‐analysis post‐intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.23

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 23 Psychomotor Development Indices (PDI) meta‐analysis post‐intervention.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 24 Bayley Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.24

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 24 Bayley Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 25 Mental Development Indices (MDI) meta‐analysis post‐intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.25

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 25 Mental Development Indices (MDI) meta‐analysis post‐intervention.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 26 Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) follow‐up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.26

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 26 Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 27 Gessel/Capital meta‐analysis (post intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.27

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 27 Gessel/Capital meta‐analysis (post intervention).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 28 Gessel Developmental Quotient (post intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.28

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 28 Gessel Developmental Quotient (post intervention).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 29 Capital institute Mental Checklist (post intervention).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.29

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 29 Capital institute Mental Checklist (post intervention).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 30 Gessel Developmental Quotient (follow‐up 6 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.30

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 30 Gessel Developmental Quotient (follow‐up 6 months).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 31 Attachment patterns (strange situation procedure).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.31

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 31 Attachment patterns (strange situation procedure).

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 32 Distractibility (toy) follow‐up 1 year.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.32

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 32 Distractibility (toy) follow‐up 1 year.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 33 Habituation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.33

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 33 Habituation.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 34 Seconds to habituation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.34

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 34 Seconds to habituation.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 35 Trials to habituation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.35

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 35 Trials to habituation.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 36 Post habituation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.36

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 36 Post habituation.

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 37 Habituation test.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.37

Comparison 2 Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development, Outcome 37 Habituation test.

Table 1. Study investigators' analyses: comparison of physical development

Survey time

Height

Weight

Head

Chest

Comment

Liu C 2001 0 to 2 months; Liu C 2001 3 to 6 months

4 months of age (1 month Post‐intervention)

t = 0.854; P = 0.396

t = 1.120; P = 0.226

t =‐0.343; P = 0.732

t = 0.995; P = 0.322

Through a six‐month vertical survey of the growth of all n = 310 (that is, all participants from both Liu C 2001 0 to 2 months; Liu C 2001 3 to 6 months) the infant participants over 0‐6 months, it was shown that the weight and the chest circumference of the infants who received the massage developed better than the control group. There was a significant difference between infants of the two groups by the six months. Height and head circumference were not significantly different.

* Significantly different

6 months of age (3 months Post‐intervention)

t = 1.763; P = 0.081

t = 2.295; *P = 0.025

t = 0.411; P = 0.682

t = 2.659; *P = 0.010

Maimaiti 2007

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Outcome assessments at Post‐intervention on weight, length and head circumference were presented using a χ2 sided test and were significantly different between massage and control group ( P > 0.05).

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Study investigators' analyses: comparison of physical development
Table 2. Sleep habits

Study ID

Intervention

Good

Medium

Not good

Control

Good

Medium

Not good

Statistical significance

X2

P

Liu C 2001 0 to 2 months

n = 159

136

23

0

n = 73

49

20

4

X2 = 15.353

P = 0.0000

(statistically significant between massage and control)

Liu C 2001 3 to 6 months

n = 41

41

7

1

n = 29

21

7

1

X2 = 1.417

P = > 0.10 (not statistically significant between massage and control)

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Sleep habits
Table 3. Other developmental measures

Study ID

Outcome measure (Post‐intervention)

Intervention

Control

Statistical tests

X2

P

Maimaiti 2007

Rise from prone 0 degrees

6

71

X2= 4.212; P = < 0.05

Statistically significant between intervention and control.

Rise from prone 45 degrees

61

23

Rise from prone 90 degrees

33

6

Sight tracking 30cm

19

41

X2 = 30.11; P = < 0.05

Statistically significant between intervention and control.

Sight tracking 50cm

42

39

Sight tracking 100cm

39

20

Auditory tracking Can do

91

86

X2 = 4.735; P = < 0.05

Statistically significant between intervention and control.

Auditory tracking Cannot do

9

14

Smiling for testers Can do

34

19

X2 = 4.568; P = 0.05

Statistically significant between intervention and control.

Smiling for testers Cannot do

66

81

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Other developmental measures
Comparison 1. Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Weight Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Post‐intervention

18

2271

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐965.25 [‐1360.52, ‐569.98]

1.2 Post‐intervention Western studies

2

81

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐127.10 [‐575.14, 320.93]

1.3 Post‐intervention sensitivity analysis for Kim 2003

17

2213

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐975.96 [‐1390.63, ‐561.30]

1.4 Post‐intervention sensitivity analysis risk of bias

3

405

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐203.55 [‐443.37, 36.26]

1.5 Follow‐up 6 to 8 months

3

202

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐758.29 [‐1364.67, ‐151.90]

1.6 Follow‐up 6 months sensitivity analysis for Kim 2003

2

157

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐455.07 [‐823.80, ‐86.33]

2 Weight: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Post‐intervention subgroup short term

5

443

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐374.07 [‐654.84, ‐93.31]

2.2 Post‐intervention subgroup medium term

12

1648

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1259.19 [‐1807.80, ‐710.58]

2.3 Post‐intervention subgroup long term

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐500.00 [‐811.25, ‐188.75]

3 Length Show forest plot

11

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Post‐intervention

11

1683

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.30 [‐1.60, 1.00]

3.2 Post‐intervention sensitivity analysis risk of bias

3

405

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.65 [‐1.20, ‐0.11]

3.3 Follow‐up 6 months

2

161

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.98 [‐4.69, 0.72]

4 Length: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention) Show forest plot

11

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Post‐intervention subgroup short duration

5

443

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐1.54, ‐0.47]

4.2 Post‐intervention subgroup medium‐term duration

5

1060

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.51 [‐1.76, ‐1.27]

4.3 Post‐intervention subgroup long duration

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.13 [‐1.88, ‐0.38]

5 Head circumference Show forest plot

10

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Post‐intervention

9

1423

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.81 [‐1.18, ‐0.45]

5.2 Post‐intervention sensitivity analysis risk of bias

2

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.27, 0.12]

5.3 Follow‐up 6 months

2

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.19 [‐3.88, ‐0.49]

6 Head circumference: subgroup analyses (duration of intervention) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Post‐intervention subgroup short

4

363

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.70 [‐1.45, 0.05]

6.2 Post‐intervention subgroup medium‐term

5

1060

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.16, ‐0.64]

7 Mid arm circumference Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Post‐intervention

2

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.80, ‐0.13]

8 Mid leg/thigh circumference Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Post‐intervention

2

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.49, ‐0.13]

9 Abdominal circumference Show forest plot

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.75 [‐1.09, ‐0.41]

9.1 Post‐intervention

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.75 [‐1.09, ‐0.41]

10 Chest circumference Show forest plot

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.88 [‐1.22, ‐0.54]

10.1 Post‐intervention

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.88 [‐1.22, ‐0.54]

11 Hormones: cortisol Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Salivary cortisol immediately post‐intervention

1

19

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.46 [‐0.45, 1.38]

11.2 Salivary cortisol ‐ 10 to 20 min post‐intervention

2

54

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.77, 0.30]

11.3 Urinary cortisol ‐ day 12 of intervention

1

40

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.80 [‐1.45, ‐0.15]

12 Hormones: norepinephrine Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Post‐intervention

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐60.3 [‐111.88, ‐8.72]

13 Hormones: epinephrine Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Post‐intervention

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐13.00 [‐20.08, ‐5.92]

14 Hormones: serotonin Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Post‐intervention

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐295.5 [‐705.25, 114.25]

15 Hormones: 6‐sulphatoxymelatonin secretion Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16 Biochemical markers: Bilirubin (7 days PN) Show forest plot

2

410

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐38.11 [‐50.61, ‐25.61]

17 Crying or fussing time Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 Post‐intervention

4

341

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.52, ‐0.19]

17.2 Follow‐up 3 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.40, ‐0.02]

17.3 Follow‐up 6 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.29, ‐0.01]

18 Crying frequency (times) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 Post‐intervention

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.56, ‐0.12]

18.2 Follow‐up 3 months

1

126

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.19 [‐0.36, ‐0.02]

18.3 Follow‐up 6 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.35, ‐0.01]

19 Sleep/wake behaviours (Thoman) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.1 Quiet sleep

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐6.30 [‐20.16, 7.56]

19.2 Active sleep

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.3 Inactive alert

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐12.70 [‐19.38, ‐6.02]

19.4 Crying

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.2 [‐12.24, ‐4.16]

19.5 Drowsy

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.0 [‐0.19, 4.19]

19.6 Active awake

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐15.00 [‐22.29, ‐7.71]

19.7 REM sleep

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.8 Movement

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐12.60 [‐27.59, 2.39]

20 Behavioural state immediately post‐intervention (Thoman) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 Asleep

1

26

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.55, 1.96]

20.2 Awake

1

26

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.27, 2.23]

20.3 Crying

1

26

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.94 [0.09, 43.50]

21 Sleep duration over 24hr period Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1 Post‐intervention

4

634

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.91 [‐1.51, ‐0.30]

21.2 Sleep follow‐up 3 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.30 [‐1.81, ‐0.79]

21.3 Sleep follow‐up 6 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.64, 0.48]

22 Mean increase in 24h sleep Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.1 Post‐intervention

2

225

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.47 [‐4.43, 1.49]

23 Mean increase in duration of night sleep Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.1 Post‐intervention

2

225

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.28 [‐3.66, 1.10]

24 Mean increase in duration of day sleep Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

24.1 Post‐intervention

1

125

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.21, 0.41]

25 Mean increase in duration of first morning sleep after massage Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.1 Post‐intervention

1

125

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.52 [‐1.69, ‐1.35]

26 Sleep (total hours per night) Show forest plot

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.70 [1.00, ‐0.40]

26.1 Post‐intervention

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.70 [1.00, ‐0.40]

27 Number of naps (total number of naps) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

28 Number of naps in day Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

29 Number of naps at night Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

30 Night Wake Frequency (times) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

30.1 Post‐intervention

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.48 [‐0.81, ‐0.15]

30.2 Follow‐up 3 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐0.63, ‐0.13]

30.3 Follow‐up 6 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.35 [‐0.56, ‐0.14]

31 Night wake duration Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

31.1 Post‐intervention

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐0.51, ‐0.03]

31.2 Follow‐up 3 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.31, ‐0.05]

31.3 Follow‐up 6 months

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.26 [‐0.50, ‐0.02]

32 Blood flow (post intervention) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

32.1 Blood flow (cm/s) post‐intervention

1

125

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐1.03, ‐0.05]

32.2 Blood velocity (cm/s) post‐intervention

1

125

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.98 [‐6.65, 4.69]

32.3 Vessel diameter (cm) post‐intervention

1

125

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [0.01, 0.03]

33 Formula intake Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

33.1 Post‐intervention (US fl oz converted to ml)

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

70.97 [6.16, 135.78]

34 Illness Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

34.1 URTI (post intervention)

2

310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.19 [0.86, 1.65]

34.2 Anaemia (post intervention)

2

310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.79, 2.82]

34.3 Diarrhoea (post intervention)

2

310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.20, 0.76]

35 Illness and clinic visits Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

35.1 Illness follow‐up 6 months

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.82 [‐10.62, ‐7.02]

35.2 Clinic visits follow‐up 6 months

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.98 [‐7.07, ‐4.89]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Infant massage versus control ‐ physical development
Comparison 2. Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Infant temperament meta‐analyses Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Activity (post‐intervention)

3

121

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.39 [‐0.34, 1.13]

1.2 Persistence (post‐intervention)

2

81

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.24 [‐0.20, 0.67]

1.3 Soothability (post‐intervention)

2

80

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.94, 0.35]

2 Infant temperament (CCTI) post intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Activity

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.60 [‐4.41, 1.21]

2.2 Soothability

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.90 [‐5.71, ‐0.09]

2.3 Emotionality

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.80 [‐3.61, 2.01]

2.4 Sociability

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.5 [‐3.98, 0.98]

2.5 Persistence

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐2.38, 2.58]

2.6 Food adaptation

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐1.98, 2.98]

3 Infant temperament (Infant behaviour questionnaire (IBQ) post intervention) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Activity

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.08, 1.04]

3.2 Soothability

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.59, 0.65]

3.3 Duration of orienting

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.82, 0.82]

3.4 Distress to limitations

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.49, 0.33]

3.5 Fear

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.63, 0.51]

3.6 Amount of smiling

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.14, 0.74]

4 Infant temperament questionnaire (revised RITQ (Carey)) post‐intervention 4 months Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Activity

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.11, 0.71]

4.2 Rhythmicity

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.19 [‐0.63, 0.25]

4.3 Approach

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.17 [‐0.18, 0.52]

4.4 Adaptability

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.30, 0.50]

4.5 Intensity

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.28, 0.66]

4.6 Mood

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [‐0.14, 0.76]

4.7 Persistence

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [‐0.11, 0.77]

4.8 Distractibility

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.18, 0.74]

4.9 Threshold

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.43, 0.65]

5 Infant temperament questionnaire (revised RITQ (Carey)) follow‐up 8 months Show forest plot

1

369

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.48, 0.84]

5.1 Activity

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐0.33, 0.83]

5.2 Rhythmicity

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.12, 1.48]

5.3 Approach

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.25, 1.51]

5.4 Adaptability

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.01, 1.37]

5.5 Intensity

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.02, 0.76]

5.6 Mood

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.65, 1.51]

5.7 Persistence

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [‐0.03, 1.33]

5.8 Distractibility

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.32, 1.12]

5.9 Threshold

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [‐0.27, 1.23]

6 Infant Care Questionnaire post‐intervention Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 ICQ fussy/difficult

1

59

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.37 [‐2.53, 5.27]

6.2 ICQ unadaptable

1

59

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.19 [‐1.51, 1.13]

6.3 ICQ dull

1

59

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.08 [‐2.60, 0.44]

6.4 ICQ unpredictable

1

59

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [‐1.78, 3.00]

7 Infant Care Questionnaire follow‐up 1 year Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 ICQ fussy/difficult

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [‐2.43, 4.53]

7.2 ICQ unadaptable

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐1.63, 0.85]

7.3 ICQ dull

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐1.54, 2.24]

7.4 ICQ unpredictable

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.89 [‐0.55, 4.33]

8 Infant attachment (Q set) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Follow‐up 1 year

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.17, 0.05]

9 Child behaviour (HOME) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Follow‐up (24 months)

1

25

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [‐1.92, 2.60]

10 Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) ‐ Intensity domain Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Follow‐up 24 months

1

25

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.95 [‐9.94, 19.84]

11 Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI) ‐ Problem domain Show forest plot

1

25

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.19 [‐3.26, 2.88]

11.1 Follow‐up 24 months

1

25

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.19 [‐3.26, 2.88]

12 Mother and child interaction meta‐analysis ‐ Total NCATS and Murray Global Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Post‐intervention

3

131

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.26 [‐1.01, 0.48]

12.2 Follow‐up 12 and 24 months

2

65

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.69, 0.29]

13 Nursing Child Feeding Assessment Scale (NCAFS) ‐ Total Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Post‐intervention (16 weeks)

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐6.16, 1.96]

14 Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) ‐ Mother Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Follow‐up 24 months

1

25

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.96, 0.61]

15 Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) ‐ Child Show forest plot

1

25

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐0.44, 1.14]

15.1 Follow‐up 24 months

1

25

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐0.44, 1.14]

16 Maternal sensitivity ‐ warm to cold (Murray) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Post‐intervention

2

84

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐1.07, 0.40]

16.2 Follow‐up 1 year

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.84 [‐1.07, ‐0.61]

17 Maternal sensitivity ‐ non‐intrusive to intrusive (Murray) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 Post‐intervention

2

84

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.85, 0.66]

17.2 Follow‐up 1 year

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.30, 0.28]

18 Maternal sensitivity ‐ remoteness (Murray) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 Post‐intervention

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.32, 0.48]

18.2 Follow‐up

1

62

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.40, 0.12]

19 Infant interactions ‐ infant performance ‐ attentive to non attentive (Murray) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.1 Post‐intervention

2

84

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐1.47, 0.52]

19.2 Follow‐up 1 year

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [‐0.18, 0.54]

20 Infant interactions ‐ lively to inert (Murray) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 Post‐intervention

2

84

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐1.45, 0.53]

20.2 Follow‐up 1 year

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.31, 0.09]

21 Infant interactions ‐ happy to distressed (Murray) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1 Post intervention

2

84

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.35 [‐1.29, 0.59]

21.2 Follow‐up 1 year

1

40

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.26, 0.22]

22 Parenting stress (PSI Abidin) child characteristics subscale Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.1 Post‐intervention

2

55

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐10.85 [‐53.86, 32.16]

23 Psychomotor Development Indices (PDI) meta‐analysis post‐intervention Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.1 Post‐intervention

4

466

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.35 [‐0.54, ‐0.15]

23.2 Post‐intervention sensitivity analysis Western studies

1

41

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.61, 0.62]

24 Bayley Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

24.1 Follow‐up 8 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.78 [‐11.89, 10.33]

24.2 Follow‐up 24 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.52 [‐16.53, 1.49]

25 Mental Development Indices (MDI) meta‐analysis post‐intervention Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.1 Post‐intervention

4

466

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐0.64, 0.11]

25.2 Post‐intervention sensitivity analysis Western studies

1

41

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [‐0.23, 1.00]

26 Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

26.1 Follow‐up 8 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

22.85 [4.26, 41.44]

26.2 Follow‐up 24 months

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.59 [‐18.80, 1.62]

27 Gessel/Capital meta‐analysis (post intervention) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

27.1 Gross motor

2

237

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐0.70, ‐0.18]

27.2 Fine motor

2

237

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.61 [‐0.87, ‐0.35]

27.3 Language

2

237

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.82 [‐1.67, 0.03]

27.4 Personal‐social behaviour

2

237

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.61, ‐0.18]

28 Gessel Developmental Quotient (post intervention) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

28.1 Adaptive behaviour

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.07 [‐9.75, ‐4.39]

28.2 Gross motor

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.97 [‐6.99, ‐0.95]

28.3 Fine motor

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐6.89 [‐10.18, ‐3.60]

28.4 Language

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.15 [‐7.03, ‐1.27]

28.5 Personal‐social behaviour

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐6.41 [‐9.65, ‐3.17]

29 Capital institute Mental Checklist (post intervention) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

29.1 Gross motor

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.44, ‐0.05]

29.2 Fine motor

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.28 [‐0.51, ‐0.05]

29.3 Cognitive

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐0.92, ‐0.15]

29.4 Language

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.7 [‐0.99, ‐0.41]

29.5 Social behaviour

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.70 [‐0.97, ‐0.42]

29.6 IQ

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐27.18 [‐33.13, ‐21.23]

30 Gessel Developmental Quotient (follow‐up 6 months) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

30.1 Adaptive behaviour

1

116

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.79 [‐9.64, ‐1.94]

30.2 Gross motor

1

116

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.85 [‐8.18, 2.48]

30.3 Fine motor

1

116

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.12 [‐11.67, ‐4.57]

30.4 Language

1

116

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.90 [‐11.70, ‐4.10]

30.5 Personal‐social behaviour

1

116

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐6.19 [‐9.83, ‐2.55]

31 Attachment patterns (strange situation procedure) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

31.1 Secure (1 year follow‐up)

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.50, 1.34]

31.2 Avoidant (1 year follow‐up)

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.14, 14.07]

31.3 Resistant (1 year follow‐up)

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.48 [0.45, 27.02]

31.4 Disorganised (1 year follow‐up)

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.16, 3.02]

32 Distractibility (toy) follow‐up 1 year Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

32.1 Mean looks greater than 14 secs

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.65 [0.31, 22.82]

32.2 Mean looks less than 14 secs

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.68, 1.14]

32.3 Max looks greater than 14 secs

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.66, 1.38]

32.4 Max looks less than 14 secs

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.76 [0.37, 8.31]

33 Habituation Show forest plot

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.10 [‐4.79, 2.59]

34 Seconds to habituation Show forest plot

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐10.90 [‐69.41, 47.61]

35 Trials to habituation Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

36 Post habituation Show forest plot

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.0 [‐2.43, 6.43]

37 Habituation test Show forest plot

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐12.40 [‐19.37, ‐5.43]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Infant massage versus control ‐ mental health and development